Fear of a Muslim Planet

Would you like a spot of Islamophobia in your tea? It seems that a few of the Tea Party’s representatives in the midterm elections concluded that voters would like their favorite drink brewed with very hot anti-Muslim spices.

“He is the only Muslim member of congress,” Tea Party Nation leader Judson Phillips, a Tennessee attorney, wrote in an e-mail to supporters in which he urged them to help defeat Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) because of his Muslim faith. “The Quran in no uncertain terms says some wonderful things like, ‘Kill the infidels’,” wrote Phillips. “I have a real problem with people who want to kill me just because I’m the infidel,” he continued, expressing support for Ellison’s opponent, Lynne Torgerson, an independent candidate.

“What do I know of Islam?” Torgerson wrote on her website. “Well, I know of 9/11. Nineteen (19) men from Saudi Arabia, all Muslim, hijacked planes and flew into the two (2) World Trade Towers murdering thousands of people, and tried to fly into our Pentagon. … People say that we can’t include the moderate, peace loving Muslims. Well, I agree. But, who are they? … I cannot tell. It is not for me to go and try and find them. Rather, it is their duty to stand up and identify themselves, if there are any.” Case closed.

Then there was Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle, who told a crowd of supporters in Nevada that Americans must address a “militant terrorist situation” that had supposedly allowed Sharia, the Islamic religious law, to take hold in some American cities.

During a rally in the resort town of Mesquite, Angle was asked by a supporter about reports of an alleged Muslim plan to extend the Caliphate into North America. “I keep hearing about Muslims wanting to take over the United States … on a TV program just last night, I saw that they are taking over a city in Michigan and the residents of the city, they want them out,” he told Angle. “So, I want to hear your thoughts about that,” he added.

Angle responded that “we’re talking about a militant terrorist situation, which I believe it isn’t a widespread thing, but it is enough that we need to address, and we have been addressing, it.” Muslims, she suggested, have already imposed their religious law on areas of the country. “My thoughts are these, first of all, Dearborn, Michigan, and Frankford, Texas are on American soil, and under constitutional law. Not Sharia law,” she explained. “It seems to me there is something fundamentally wrong with allowing a foreign system of law to even take hold in any municipality or government situation in our United States.”

While Dearborn, Michigan, does have a thriving Muslim community, Frankford, Texas, which was annexed to Dallas in 1975, doesn’t. According to Wikipedia, Frankford now consists only of a small church and cemetery. Dearborn mayor Jack O’Reilly, who criticized Angle for her comments, noted that there was no Sharia law in Dearborn and the issue was never raised by residents. “Muslims have been practicing their faith in our community for almost 90 years without incident or conflict,” he said. “To suggest that they have taken over ignores the fact that Dearborn hosts seven mosques and 60 Christian churches.” Well, never mind.

But members of the Tea Party movement should mind. It is not clear that bashing Islam and Muslims offers electoral rewards to Republican candidates. Angle was defeated in Nevada, which, to be sure, had more to do with her offending Hispanics rather than Muslims. Ellison, an African-American who was born and raised Roman Catholic and converted to Islam later in life—and who isn’t actually the only Muslim member of Congress—was elected for a second term to represent a district with very few black or Muslim residents.

And while Tea Party darling Kristi Noem, riding to victory as a Republican House candidate in South Dakota, accentuated during her campaign her opposition to building a Muslim community center two blocks from the World Trade Center site, it was her anti-Obama message and personal appeal to the mostly conservative voters in her district that brought about her success. At the same, Carl Paladino, a Tea Party favorite running for New York governor who messaged the “Ground Zero Mosque” issue to death as he ran against an unpopular Democrat in an economically distressed state, is not going to spend the next four years in Albany. Unlike Noem, the defeated Paladino was just a lousy candidate.

Historically, the Republican Party has been the beneficiary of the Muslim vote, reflecting the conservative cultural values and business sense of a large number of American Muslims. Close to 80 percent of American Muslim voters backed George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential election. But by 2004—three years after 9/11 and against the backdrop of American-led wars in two Muslim countries—the Republican president had lost about half of his support among Muslims. Indeed, 85 percent of Muslim voters backed Barack Obama in 2010, the most solid voting bloc among any major religious group. With 79 percent of them voting for Obama, American Jews, reflecting their traditional support for Democratic candidates, ended up being proportionally the second largest pro-Obama group, a sign that while pursuing the aggressive neoconservative agenda in the Middle East has antagonized American Muslims, it has failed to win over Jewish voters.

Even in the aftermath of 9/11 and at the height of the War on Terror, President Bush and his aides refrained from defining their Middle East agenda as a clash between the West and Islam and initiated numerous public relations campaigns aimed as distinguishing between radical Islamists and the moderate majority of Muslims at home and abroad. But Obama’s efforts to reach out to Muslims overseas by promoting diplomatic engagement with Iran and embracing a more balanced U.S. position on Israel/Palestine, coupled with controversies over Islam at home, have led some Republicans, including members of the Tea Party, to conclude that exploiting anti-Muslim sentiments could produce electoral gains.

While the notion that America has been gripped by Islamophobia is exaggerated, the controversy over the mosque near Ground Zero, the threat by a loony Florida pastor to burn the Koran publicly on 9/11, and online peddling of the absurd view that Obama is Muslim seemed to create a political environment on the eve of the midterms in which criticism of Obama for his domestic economic agenda could be integrated into a larger narrative in which the president—the son of a secular Kenyan Muslim and who had spent some of his childhood in Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country—was not only a big-government liberal but psychologically un-American, if not a closet Muslim plotting the fall of the United States and the West.

Hawks who believe that the U.S. has an obligation to spread democracy worldwide, including through the use of military power, have the right to be critical of Obama’s policies abroad that, if anything, are based on the kind of realpolitik that guided the foreign policy of President George H.W. Bush. Similarly, there are legitimate reasons for conservatives to oppose a mosque blocks from Ground Zero, although a commitment to property rights and religious freedom is not among them. And the relationship between Islamic religious law and American law would probably require urgent attention if this country were being flooded by millions of Muslim immigrants. But according to no less an authority than the leading anti-Islam scaremonger, Daniel Pipes, the number of Muslim immigrants and their progeny in the U.S. is “somewhere above two million”—less than 1 percent of the country’s population.

Nevertheless, Pipes has been warning that Muslim militants “want to change America and make it Islamic.” Pipes, together with Robert Spencer, the head of JihadWatch.org, and Frank Gaffney of the war-mongering Center for Security Policy, has been warning for years that these Muslim radicals are attempting to assert the primacy of the Sharia over American law. These professional Muslim-baiters have been joined lately by more mainstream figures like Newt Gingrich, who has called for a federal ban on Sharia law, as well as by local activists around the country who have been pressing for measures that would bar state judges from considering Sharia in formulating rulings.

But as Rachel Slajda, a researcher for Talking Points Memo, observes, much of this talk about the Sharia threat is based on papers written by members of radical Islamic groups around the world—such as the Muslim Brotherhood—that dream up implausible and often bizarre anti-American strategies. Political activists who perceive a threat from Islamic law also refer to a 2009 case in which a judge refused to grant a restraining order against a Moroccan immigrant who forced sex on his wife. The judge said the husband’s belief that his wife must submit to sex was consistent with his religious practices. But according to the Wall Street Journal, an appeals court reversed the judge and granted the restraining order, citing a Supreme Court decision rejecting a Mormon’s claim that his faith exempted him from an anti-bigamy statute.

It is true that a few American cities now have religious bodies that help adjudicate family-law disputes and other personal matters among believers through binding arbitration. But these are Jewish religious bodies and the believers are Orthodox Jews who adhere to the Halakha, the Jewish religious law. In any case, these verdicts have to be accepted by the disputants and are enforced by American courts that ensure that they won’t violate U.S. laws.

In Britain, in the same way that rabbinical beth din courts can rule on civil cases among Orthodox Jews, Sharia courts were given power to adjudicate Muslim civil cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence. Whether the U.S. would allow practicing Muslims the same rights as Orthodox Jews have to operate such courts could become an issue if the number and influence of Muslims grows in this country.

But what exactly does this have to do with the threat that al-Qaeda and other Muslim terrorist groups pose to America? For those who suggest that Islam by definition is the breeding ground for contemporary terrorism, the notion that Muslims could become law-abiding American citizens or American patriots is a contradiction in terms. As Reason’s Jesse Walker notes, this fear of Islam echoes the Know-Nothings’ anti-Catholic sentiments and the fear of the Vatican. The main difference between then and now is that the Know-Nothings of the 19th century were not advocating sending American troops to depose the pope and invade Catholic countries to force them to embrace American values.

Muslim anti-Americanism and violence, on the other hand, is in large part a response to American attempts to establish domination over the Middle East. Interestingly enough, in his groundbreaking essay “The Clash of Civilizations,” Samuel Huntington warned against the kind of policy that would inflame anti-Americanism in the Middle East and foment conflict between the U.S. and the Muslim world. The suggestion that Muslims are invading America and trying to force their values and law on us seems to be a form of projection bias—attributing our own impulses to the other side. We want to control Muslims in the Middle East, and we blame the Muslims for planning to control us here at home.

Nation-states certainly have the right to control their borders and implement a policy that takes into consideration the economic, socio-cultural, and national- security costs of immigration. That makes it necessary to have debates over the mostly Hispanic immigration to this country and the mostly Muslim immigration to European countries. But the main threat Americans face from Muslims is in the realm of national security and in the form of terrorism. Taking steps to reduce U.S. military intervention in the broader Middle East and employing a mix of intelligence and security operations to prevent terrorism could prove very effective in lessening this threat. We certainly have no interest in closing the doors of this country to talented and industrious Muslim immigrants who would be ready to embrace American values and adhere to our laws.

Pursuing a foreign policy that presupposes a unified, homogeneous, and anti-American Muslim world runs very much contrary to U.S. strategic interests. We would be better off recognizing that this imaginary entity, the Caliphate, consists in reality of many conflicting nation-states, ethnic groups, and religious sects. Some of them want to work and trade with us, and some don’t. But sowing fear of a monolithic Islam serves the interests of our client states, defense contractors, and lobbyists who press for rising defense budgets and further military interventions. This anti-Islam narrative is also promoted by Republican activists and conservative-movement pundits who hope that like the Red Menace of old, the specter of a Green Peril could serve as a unifying force for the political right. But this kind of policy would only end up overextending the military, ballooning deficits, and devastating our economic base. That’s exactly the kind of tea that conservatives and libertarians have sworn not to drink.

Leon Hadar is a Cato Institute research fellow in foreign-policy studies and author of Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East.

The American Conservative relies upon readers like you to make articles like this one possible. Please make a tax-deductible donation today–and enjoy TAC for another new year.

While supplies last, our most generous donors may request a signed copy of Bill Kauffman’s Ain’t My America: The Long, Noble History of Antiwar Conservatism and Middle-American Anti-Imperialism.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 49 comments

49 Responses to Fear of a Muslim Planet

Muslim immigration isn’t that high to the United States at no point will sharia law be a threat. Having the millions upon millions of people from the third world in general is what will end the country. I read somewhere that Paris now has 700 no go areas that the French state no longer controls. How pathetic is that? I wonder how many french,british and american WWII vets who died decades ago would still have served if they knew how their countries would turn out.

There have been enough US commentators saying we are at War with Islam, People want to burn Korans, muslims are traitors and terrorists etc. Just think Fox, Rush Palin etc. Cheap dogwhistle politics that others are paying the price for.

The christian communities in majority muslim countries are our faiths oldest congregations. I would add that they are also persecuted in…Israel and denied the rights of citizenship. We brought war to this part of the planet and these christian communities are paying the price of it. If we have Fox declaring we are at war with Islam on cable tv beamed across the world what do they expect?

While there is some potential for terrorism problems with our domestic Islamic communtiy (two attempted bombings in the past two weeks) the notion that America will be under Sharia supposes either a rash of conversions or a breeding rate amongst muslims that would rival cockroaches. Not happening.

The alleged lack of human rights in many Muslim societies aside, has any intelligent reader here pondered how the recurring terruhrist “threats” on our soil only keep justifying the Military Industrial Complex — which has already sapped American taxpayers of One Trillion dollars to date? And put in the NeoCon hands the top oilfields in the world…?

Islam is in a perpetual war with everyone else. If someone tells you otherwise call that person a liar. In Islam there are two important definitions which are applied to the World Dar al-Harb (House of War) and Dar al-Islam (House of Islam). The House of Islam is a realm which is ruled by the Islamic law and Islamic ruler. Within the House of Islam there are protected people Dhimmi, originally only Jews and Christians, they are allowed to prosper and practice their religion. The reason for it is simple, Islamic law and rule provides a perpetual peace and harmony for all the people of the book everyone else must convert to Islam or perish. Only time this strict rule was modified was in the case of Islamic Emirate of Moghuls, in the Northern India where the orthodox Sunni Islam was modified to accept some aspects of Bhudism and Hinduism thus providing an eclectic coexistence. By definition, Islam only recognizes One God principle, so all religions which do not recognize One God, must be destroyed and followers converted to Islam. So the claim that Islam is the peaceful religion is partially correct, however what no one likes to talk about is the House of War.

The House of War encompasses everything outside of the House of Islam. In the House of War violence is permitted, there are no protected people; even Muslims are “fair game” as long as the violence intends to extend the boundaries of the House of Islam. The struggle which originally was described as Ghazwa and later on took a name of Jihad, is the principle means through which Islam is spread. If anyone tells you otherwise call that person a liar! In the House of War, Muslims are permitted to kill, pillage, enslave, etc. all in the name of expansion of the Islam. These people are called Ghazi and are among the most admired and respected Muslims. That is also the main reason why there is no shortage of recruits to carry the flag of Jihad.

Last, there is a mystical side of Islam which was originated amongst the commoners and later on was partially integrated into the Sunni orthodoxy. It is called Sufism. Though originally it intended to free the believers from the institutionalized Islamic dogma, it was eventually incorporated into the main stream Islam. It is a less rigid form of Islam; it is ritualistic and highly tolerant. It was especially popular form of Islam among the conquered people, however the original Sufism has been subverted into the Sunni orthodoxy with some elements existing in Shiism.

Why did I write this short synopsis of the “Religion of Peace”? Because to understand the danger which Islam poses to the non-Muslims one must understand the forked tongue with which it speaks. Immigration of Muslims into the non-Muslim countries can be viewed as a new form of Ghazwa. Is it organized with a specific goal in mind? The answer is definite no, however, Ghazwa carried out by Arab tibes in 8-10th centuries, Ottomans from 10th through 16th century, and Temurids of 13th-16th centuries were nearly as chaotic as today’s immigration, and were largely motivated by the economic reasons. If in the past Muslims raided the frontier lands, the House of War, to gain material wealth which lead to weakening of the existing regimes, the modern immigration is motivated with the economic prosperity to be attained in the West, the fact that the majority of the new immigrants do not assimilate into the Western culture weakens the power of the existing system of governance. This is readily apparent in Europe, where Muslims have created segregated “ghettos” where they maintain customs and norms of their country of origin. This brings us to the last and the most dangerous element of Islam in the West – fundamentalism.

Though Muslim immigration into the West is not part of a well thought out and organized attempt to subvert the western civilization, nonetheless it provides a fertile ground for the fundamentalism. If one views oneself as Muslim, then one is obligated to be part of Ghazwa. Not all Muslims succumb to this “temptation” but there are enough disenfranchised to provide recruits for the fundamentalists.

Why should this be problematic for the West? The West dealt with the similar issue in the 50’s and 60’s with the rise of Communism in the Western societies. In England, Americas, Western Germany, Greece, Spain, Italy, France, etc. The solution to this problem was extremely controversial, it was well outside of the values professed by the Western civilization but in the end the elites saw it as a necessary evil in order to preserve their power since these forces were organized and funded by a real enemy, the USSR, which posed an existential threat to them. Today the USSR doesn’t exist anymore and vigilance in combating communist ideology has been largely lost, but the threat is not diminished. Islam is in a similar situation. Since there isn’t a belligerent power associated with its spread, such as Ottoman Empire or Islamic Caliphate, the vigilance of the elites in the West is docile. That is why the articles, such as one presented above, are written without understanding of the core conflict of two civilizations. As much as we would like to profess tolerance, Islam in its current form, is a revolutionary ideology which has subversion of the hosts governance as its fundamental goal. Would we permit a revolutionary organization which intended an overthrow of the US government? Would we tolerate a religion which not only condoned but promoted the violence against our constitutional system? The answer is no. Then why are we treating Islam with such ‘kid gloves’?

Don’t get me wrong, I do not advocate outlawing of Islam in the West, that is counterproductive, but what I do advocate is calling things by their names and speaking the truth not some concocted myth about the “Religion of Peace”. People need to know what they are up against. Only through knowledge will we be able to welcome the new immigrants into our society and help them in their adaptation to the values we hold dear. Islam is in the need of reformation; however, due to its fragmentation there isn’t one body which would facilitate it. A possible solution to this conundrum might be found in Sufism. We must promote Sufi orders which are tolerant and allow them to have a greater access to the Muslim population thus keeping the extremist elements out of the main stream. If we succeed in this approach, we might be able to forge a lasting synthesis of Islam and the Western values, but this can only happen if we realized that the truth is the best tool in dealing with such complex issue.

It is funny that far right groups, including evangelicals, get their information about Islam from Jewish extremists. They in turn exchange information with the fringe radical Muslims. This is what it is: a big conspiracy to bring a religious war which will benefit all radical groups all over the world. All need to be alert and prepared for a big fascist move across all corners of the world: all of them love big governments and war.
The fact of the matter is Christians and Muslims have lived together for as long as they remember, despite all the tribal conflicts. The fact is Islam is approving of Christianity and Jesus Christ is more sacred among Muslims than most Christians. More Muslims are killed defending the Christians against their own illiterate radicals than Christians themselves and ,,,,,……a thousands other way you can refute fascists.

But hey ” don’t believe anything else except what we feed you, be scared, let us control you”.

The real Islamic threat is that people disgusted with the complete collapse of all moral standards in the personal, social and economic spheres, and left helpless by the closely connected, almost total loss of collective cultural memory, will convert to Islam in droves. Look at the mosques full of disaffected young men in Afro-Caribbean areas over here, and at the flourishing Student Islamic Societies full of white, middle-class, deep-thinking, and often female seekers. In comparable ways did many another country begin to be Islamized.

Who would have thought that present-day Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh and much of Northern India could have been Islamized? North Africa? Much of Sub-Saharan Africa, very much an ongoing process? Central Asia and much of western China? But how did it happen? And how quickly? The White British Muslim population is already well over 60,000. Imagine if it alone grew by an improbably small 50 per cent every 10 years: by 2100, there would be over a million. Now imagine that it grew by a possibly over-large, but nevertheless much more realistic, 100 per cent every 10 years: by 2100, there would be nearly 23 million. Yet that is only the White British section of British Muslims.

Face-covering – not head-covering, but face-covering – is incompatible with the conduct of Western social and cultural life. Halal meat is one thing (do indigenous Middle Eastern Christians eat it?), but animal sacrifice is totally unacceptable. So is polygamy. There is nothing any more acceptable about male than about female genital mutilation. While certainly not without sympathy for opposition to usury, Sharia law must have no legal status in our countries. The public holidays should be Christian festivals.

And mosques in the West must not have domes and minarets, which are triumphalistic manifestations of an Islamized society, culture and polity, and which were in that spirit added to former churches during Islam’s forcible overrunning of the Eastern Roman Empire. How long before our cathedrals, churches and chapels go the same way? It happened in Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, the Levant and North Africa, all once integral parts of Christendom.

We need to re-learn structured daily prayer, setting aside one day in seven, fasting, almsgiving, pilgrimage, the global community of faith as the primary focus of personal allegiance and locus of personal identity, the lesser outward and greater inward struggle, the need for a comprehensive and coherent critique of both capitalism and Marxism, the coherence between faith and reason, and a consequent integrated view of art and science. The answer to the challenge of the Sunna is Sacred Tradition. The answer to the challenge of the Imamate is the Petrine Office. The answer to the challenge of Sufism is our own tradition of mysticism and monasticism. Liberal Catholics will be the last to see the point.

Here in Western Europe, we´ve had Islamic immigration for decades. The “new” Europeans have been met with a wide spectrum of integration policies – gradually it became clear, however, that immigrants from islamic countries have generally failed to integrate (in comparison with immigrants from the Balkans or other non-islamic regions). As a result, we´re currently seeing the rise of right-wing, anti-islamic parties throughout Western Europe, supported by people who are fed up with liberal multi-culturalism and constant compromises with followers of an uncompromising, retarded and incredibly stupid “religion” that has been utterly intolerant throughout its history (in spite of all the myths around moorish Spain etc. etc.). As one German scholar has put it:”there may be moderate muslims, but there is no moderate Islam”.

Just wait another year and you will be able to watch the consequences of muslim immigration in Europe: polarization, violence, terror and civil unrest. Probably, our national “elites” who despise Christianity and embrace Islam will eventually face the same fate as European muslims. Gerald Celente expects the “Reconquista 2.0” to begin in 2012; I guess it might take some more years, but it will happen and – believe me – it will be very ugly.

So, American Conservatives, just go on to embrace this intolerant, inherently violent and utterly stupid pseudo-religion and accept the consequences! In the meantime, watch out what´s going to happen in good, old Europe…

It’s not absurd. How much is there about Obama that we do not know, because he has kept his records sealed? Do I think Obama is a Moslem? No. But I think he is more sympathetic t…o Islam (and atheism and agnosticism) than any other previous President. When some middle American people see Obama, what they see in his face is a Moslem countenance. I think this gave more people pause than the African aspect of his heritage.

“much of this talk about the Sharia threat is based on papers written by members of radical Islamic groups around the world—such as the Muslim Brotherhood—that dream up implausible and often bizarre anti-American strategies.”

You mean like… the implausible and often bizarre strategies of the New Left? It only took a generation for some of those ideas to be incorporated into policy, during the Clinton administration.

So Moslems are only 1% of the population, but how much of the population is homosexual? We know Kinsey’s figures were exaggerated, so it’s not even the claimed 10%. The fact of the matter is, then, that less than 10% of the population has persuaded nearly half the population (of California at least) that to oppose gay marriage is intolerant. It is possible that within another generation the fashion may change to favor the politically correct imposition of Sharia Law in various pockets of the country, under the same banner of multiculturalism and tolerance.

I don’t like the “Islam is a threat, Islam all the time” mentality, and big government is a more pressing issue, but nonetheless a geopolitical and cultural threat exists.

What does “Islam is a threat” and at “perpetual war” with the infidels have anything to do with the NeoCon war for Oilfields?
Sad how many buffoons invoke long treatises and tirades to demonstrate their being chumps in the bigger game…

So are Non muslims protected in muslim countries or not? I’m confused.
By the way, how did these Jews and Christians survive Islam to our present day,but Judaism could not survive a couple of hundred years of Inquisition?

An Islamic state where there is a Muslim ruler and is organized according to Shari’a Law is very tolerant of monotheistic religions, such as Judaism and Christianity. Those who practice these religions are protected. For example, the Ottomans gave shelter to thousands of Jews who escaped the Spanish Inquisition. Christians and Jews were allowed to have their own communities which administered religious law according to Talmud and the Holly Bible within their respective communities, millets. In that respect they were very tolerant, however there were other discriminatory practices such as extra taxation, etc. But as far as religion was concerned they were not forced to convert and were given all the freedoms and privileges. The problem is what constitutes the House of Islam. Traditionally it was determined through the ijma, which means consensus of Muslims, later it was limited to consensus of the ulama (scholars of Islam and Islamic Law). However, today due to the fragmentation of the Islamic society and the competing political interests achieving such consensus is made very difficult. This allows radicals (those who seek violence as the means of achieving their specific goals) to declare that as of right now there are no countries which are ruled by the Shari’a Law thus violence and religious persecution is permitted.

Inherent decentralization which enabled Islam to unify many cultures under one religious sphere is proving to be very problematic in absence of a dominant Islamic hegemony. In the past, ijma was achieved in favor of a strongest military faction so the political stability was assured. Today, there is no such force which could unite Islamic societies thus bringing some semblance of peace. Saudis are the most influential among the Muslim rulers but that is due to their control over hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca. They are far from being a strong political or military power capable of achieving the consensus. This type of power void leaves radical elements unchecked and they are able to do whatever they please while justifying their actions as the means of carrying out the Jihad and technically they are justified as far as Islam is concerned. That is why no one can say that Islamic terrorists are violating Islamic laws. That is the paradox of the Islam which can be very tolerant on one hand but extremely intolerant on the other.

Another complicating factor with Islam is the division within Islamic jurisprudence. Depending whether one subscribes to strict (Sunni orthodox) approach or much more general approach, there are 4 (Sunni only) or 9 schools of Islamic law (Madh’hab) which can impact the level of tolerance to other cultures and religions. The Madh’hab is determined by the judicious philosophy and which fatwa (religious ruling, opinion) is accepted within that school. Without going in too deep, Islamic religious law is very fascinating subject to study; it was one of the first systems of jurisprudence based on precedents and rulings. We have to know this because there are no simple answers when it comes to Islam and Islamic law. There are only 5 explicit rules (kind of like 10 commandments) which are called the pillars of Islam:

Other than those 5 rules, everything else is subject to interpretation. If you go past the Sunni Islam, then things get even more convoluted. In Shiism you have not only religious law but also Ijtihad which gives a religious scholar an ability to issue binding rulings on any subject thus expressing the divine will of Allah. If in Sunni belief system, fatwa is a “recommendation” and isn’t mandatory per-say, in Shiism ruling issued by scholars are binding. Shiism is also very intolerant of other religions, including Sunni Islam. Shiism has actually forced followers of other religions to convert under the threat of death.

So Islam is a fascinating as well as very complex subject matter and is very difficult to fit in simple definitions, but one thing is very clear, if you do not recognize Shari’a Law things became very simple, there are no protections extended to you and you are a fair game.

Orthodox Christianity and Judaism survived 1400-odd years of Muslim domination in the Middle East because – for a sufficient amount of that time – the society was pluralistic and tolerant. And, arguably, to an quite an extent – secular. It was not in the interest of the “clergy” or the khalif/sultan/monarch/ whatever to be seen as too close – as this could seriously undermine their authority. The clergy did not actually rule – there were around and about the ruler there was some distance. Pity Bush didn’t know when to ignore certain people. Clerical rule was Khomeini’s idea – previously considered a heresy to many Shia. There is an interesting parallel with Zionism here.
The destruction of Christianity in Iraq has been entirely since 2003 – prior to that the Iraqis did not allow xenophobic extremists to gain influence. Broad education had enabled people to judge matters for themselves and despite differences of faith, bigotry was very much sphere of the ignorant. They had a Christian Foreign Minister, Tariq Aziz. Now, Iraqi politics now seems to be entirely confessional. The extremists effectively entered Iraq with the Americans, and after sufficient mischief from both sides there was enough bitterness for their ideas to gain traction and induce horrendous mutual antagonism. A very sad end to the competent, educated and tolerant Iraqi society that had survived despite Saddam, his cronies,and the sanctions. That bomb in the Golden Dome was an atrocity designed to spawn more atrocities and destroyed the country. Interestingly the vast majority of the extremists came from areas which are indigenously 100% exclusively Sunni Muslim. In particular – central “Saudi” Arabia. Another point worth noting is that much of “Saudi” oil lies under regions that are majority Shia. IMO the “rulers” there have been stirring up anti-Shia ideas precisely because of this – to justify the theft of resources.

The Iraqis, Egyptians, Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians I have known have all been proud of their religiously tolerant history. Most Iraqis I have known have been in “mixed” Shia / Sunni families.
Palestine’s indigenous Muslims and Christians have had few problems between them. Up until the advent of Zionism, the Palestiniann Jews could be included in this as well. Palestinians refer to their country as “The Holy Land” and all, including the Muslims, are proud of the history of the Jewish Prophets – most of which are mentioned in the Quran. Muslims include Jesus amongst them.
We often only hear of the “highlighted” version – schisms that usually break out after some particularly evil and Machiavellian deed was committed for precisely that purpose.

Some people really need to get some facts. And stop judging people by their own standards.

1) We can’t even get sharia here, so it amuses me that people in Oklahoma is afraid it’s going to be imposed on them.

2) We have many churches of various denominations, and the English newspapers are full of their announcements for church services, Sunday schools, revivals etc. Not only are Christian completely free to worship, they’re probably more free than the Muslims. The U.S. government insists on checking the books for Islamic charities, Muslims are not supposed to give to charity unless it’s registered, the government monitors Friday sermons, etc. None of this applies to the Christian churches.

3) If an American couple went to the courts here for a divorce, the judge would make his decisions based on AMERICAN law (if neither party is a citizen, they use their own laws). So why is the idea of Muslims using Islamic law for their divorces so strange?

4) Westerners live and work here for years (tax-free) and most never bother to learn one word of Arabic. Some even complain that their children have to take an Arabic course in school. But back in their own countries, they complain that foreigners in their country don’t integrate, still speak their native language, etc. Double standard, anyone?

Hello everyone, I am surprised, frustrated and baffled by the level of understanding of the problem here. Let me play out the scenario over the last 30 years. Corporations ruling and influencing power brokers across the globe – going after natural resources of the world. All Muslim dominant countries with puppet regimes – who has put them there – GOD…oh no- its the western democracies. Which Muslim country has democracy – none. Democracy or the rule of the people doesn’t suite the people who want to pillage the countries and reconstruct the world order. Now let me draw the picture of the people – No justice, No prosperity, Families killed on behest of collateral or terrorist links, no future, no education and even own governments with lack of compassion – do you think the environment would produce saints I DONT THINK SO. The world needs to wake up. The problem is not of religions and never was — till the west made it so – The monkey calling the Gulf War a CRUSADE – what message did it convey – WHO HAS GAINED FROM 9/11 – THE MUSLIMS? IF WE THINK THAT – WE all, the world population is devoid of the grey matter. I hope sanity will prevail – no one lives for ever – and the graves for all religions are the same – dark, Lets not make the world we are living in the same. Lets have the compassion and understanding to comprehend each other point of view – without passing judgement’s – respect and be respected

Interesting comments here. I would like to respond by commenting on three leading ones.

omikaberidze’s call for embrace of Sufism reflects the lose-lose situation he foresees. It reminds me of second century Rome and its response to the rise of Christian subjects. I must acknowledge his fair comments of Dar al-Islam. However, as long as Americans are true to ideals of the founding fathers and the American constitution, Dar al-Harb will not succeed. Why is that ? Elementary; what Dar al-Islam offers to non-Muslims is not comparable with what the US constitution offers equally to everyone. When this constitutional protection is no longer available Dar al-Islam start to look appealing. Unfortunately for Americans, they have misunderstood the cliché ‘they hate our freedoms’. The proof for this is evident for everyone to see in 2010.

Halmstan finds it unacceptable that western constitutions dole out rights equally to everyone. He calls for a Dar al-Christ, “Reconquista 2.0″ he cries. We all know how that ended up. It might have driven moors back to disconnected Maghreb five centuries ago. But any resulting Ottoman empire of 21st century global village will not be content dipping its feet east of Volga; figuratively speaking.

David Lindsay laments … complete collapse of all moral standards in the personal, social and economic spheres, and left helpless by the closely connected, almost total loss of collective cultural memory, will convert to Islam in droves…. Pat Buchanan once commented that the only thing left for Christians to do, is to retreat to monastery and close the door for safeguarding whatever is left of Christian traditions. omikaberidze will confirm that Dar al-Islam will be open to this idea, even protecting the outer gates of monasteries. Mr Lindsay fails to notice that Muslims have nothing in common with forces that caused the complete collapse of moral standards. He confuses values crystallized by pagan Rome with divine injunctions of Christ and calls for a Dar al-Anti Islam. Uphold your Constitution and keep your Republic Mr Lindsay. It seems to be the only tool available for those who want to avoid an Islamic takeover of pagan United States. If anyone is serious about extinguishing the fire of Dar al-Harb, let him fight the ‘Leaven of the Pharisees’ and his enablers in MSM.

1. Persia/Iran – After the Ilkhans and Temurids left the Persian plateau the unification of Persia occurred under the theocratic regime. The dynasty which united Persia was called Safavids because its founder was a leader of the Sufi tariqa named Safaviyeh. The first ruler which united Persia, Ismail, declared himself as a hidden 7th imam. For those who are not familiar with Shiism, there are 2 principle versions of Shiism, 7thers and 12ers, called respectively depending on whether they believe 7th imam or 12th imam went into hiding. Safavids specifically created the theocratic state and after the defeat they suffered from the hands of the Ottomans in the battle of Chaldiran (1514) the Safavids switched to 12er confession of Shiism and started forcing EVERYONE to convert. Until that time, Shia were a minority in Persia and Southern Iraq. Safavids succeeded in converting most of the population under their rule to their confession. They established the clerical hierarchy with the shah at the top and they created the institution of ayatollah.

2. Arabic Caliphate was a theocracy; in fact, Islam, prior to the arrival of the Seljuks, did not recognize anything but the theocratic rule. Abbasids tried to give secular power to Seljuk Sultans and retain the title of Caliph as a religious institution similar to papacy but they failed because Islam, as it was formed at that time, did not function in a dual mode (secular and religious) and bureaucracy was inherently religious and they answered to power more so than a title. Ottomans were able to separate religion from secular governance, to some extent. They succeeded in this by largely ignoring most of the Islamic dogma. For example, Kanuns, (secular laws) though they were “inspired” by the Islamic Law, were supposed to be anathema to Islam since in Sunni confession Islamic law was no longer subject to new modifications. The Ottomans ignored this and Kanuns were administered alongside with the Shari’a Law. Another anathema was the enslavement or dhimmi issues, specifically Devshirme. There are many other more subtle violations of the Islamic rules, such as waging wars against other muslims (aka Mameluks) etc. But that is besides the point, what is on point is the fact that historically ijma has ruled on the side of the military power, “might equals right” was the unspoken rule. This is the reason why in the absence of might, aka hegemony, Islam is in a state of chaos.

3. On Arabian Peninsula, only majority Shia society is Yemen, they are followers of the 7thers. Saudi Arabia doesn’t have a significant, if any, population of Shia. Historically Shia were in the Southern Iraq (an area between Kufah and Basra), Yemen, and there were some in North Africa as well but they were ALWAYS a minority until the Safavids.

4. Iraq, during Saddam’s rule, had nothing to do with Islam or Shari’a. It was an autocracy with Sunnis in the power but I don’t think they were following religious governance. They should have been Islam’s #1 enemy because they had “enslaved” Muslims and were treating them unjustly but refer to my earlier statement, “might equals right”, Saddam was the only counter balance to Israel and thus his rule was tolerated by Muslims. I guarantee if America had gone into Iraq with Islamic flags we would be hailed as liberators by Muslims. So your argument is based on a spurious correlation of variables and thus largely irrelevant. By that argument, the fall of the Soviet Union is a travesty because it ended a competent and thriving Soviet society which existed despite the totalitarian regime. I have a suspicion that point of view is not as readily shared by Shia in the South and Kurds in the North.

On the rest of your point I agree with you, the people themselves are not intolerant. At the end of the day, whether one goes to Church on Sunday, Synagogue on Saturday, or Mosque on Friday is largely irrelevant. However, placing blame solely on Zionism would be unfair. But I will not go into that argument because it is off topic.

I don’t see things as lose-lose, I just made a comment that Islam is in need of reformation to find a peace in a changed world. If in the past, Islamic hegemonic powers maintained the prosperous Islamic states and Muslims didn’t have an inherent need to seek economic prosperity elsewhere, today they are moving to the West seeking a better life. This presents them with two choices 1. Assimilate which means no Islam, because some portions of Islamic theology provide subversive and revolutionary elements with ideological justification and this will eventually lead to massive confrontation with the host society. Or 2. Be in a perpetual state of conflict with everyone who doesn’t see things the way they do, until a new Islamic hegemonic power rises and starts imposing Shari’a on everyone.

I think Sufism offers Muslims the third choice because it isn’t as dogmatic as Sunni or Shi’a teachings, it is tolerant because it seeks contact with God on individual level not through some universal salvation of Islamic caliphate and orthodox dogma, and it is sufficiently passive not to present the host society with a threat. Muslims who live in the West would implement a form of reformation through Sufism. It has to start somewhere otherwise the perpetual hostility which is inherent to Islam will lead to more and more bloodsheds.

Your comparison to the Roman Empire is either result of me not being clear on my point or you misunderstanding it. Let me clarify, I don’t want the US to convert to a form of Sufi Islam, that would be insane and I, as an Orthodox Christian, would oppose it to the bitter end. I agree that our constitution provides for the most pluralistic form of society however there are two facts, we can’t stop the Muslim immigration and we can’t outlaw Islam. So we have to find a way to include both Muslims and Islam without compromising our own system of values which allowed us to build a pluralistic society. I think Sufism gives us a way to integrate both Muslims and Islam into our society without compromising “good Muslims’” ability to practice their religion and our ability to fend off radicals.

omikaberidze: ‘On Arabian Peninsula, only majority Shia society is Yemen, they are followers of the 7thers. Saudi Arabia doesn’t have a significant, if any, population of Shia.’

Not true. Bahrain’s population is majority Shia. Saudi has significant numbers of Shias in the Eastern Province (right next to Bahrain). In Kuwait, it’s hard to get real numbers, but Shias are somewhere from 15-30% of the population. In Oman, there are large numbers of Ibadhis, who are a type of Shia. Iraq is majority Shia.

And omikaberidze, your characterization of ‘Sufi’ as a third choice, something separate from ‘Sunni’ or ‘Shia’ is not correct. ‘Sufi’ covers a wide range of practices, from very strict and orthodox to ‘goofy Sufis’ (sort of New Age who don’t even really identify themselves as Muslims) but most Sufis are Sunni. All Muslims are supposed to seek contact with God on an individual level.

Hey Omnikadoo or whatever, and all your fundamental Christian allies: If you care to read the opening lines of this article it is about the POLITICS of the Tea Party — and not a Theological treatise. That you convert the same to such, and go on rambling tirades abt. Muslim Take overs and whatever, illustrates your lack of geopolitical intellect. Or confirms your being duped by the NeoCon Oilmen. Or both.

AmCon mag is for true conservatives, including Christian conservatives who are bright enough to see that the enemy is not radical islam, but the MIC of the Bush elk…

yes, but it’s part of the rhetorical gambit. this incredibly wealthy, militarily insuperable, endlessly violent, territorially secure nation must portray itself as fragile, weak, under attack. islam is “an existential threat” (for cryin’ out loud), therefore there should be no limit to state authority to “protect”.

Christopher Herman posted that laughable video of Obama making the claim that he’s not a U.S. citizen. As one that works with digital editing on a daily basis, using the sloppy standards of that video, I could make him say he’s from Mars and made of green cheese. There are plenty of reasons to oppose the current administration but, getting hung up by this nonsense is what keeps the sheeple occupied, herded and bleating about the irrelevant.

on the Arabian Peninsula, which accidentally has not included ISLAND of Bahrain for some millions of years, only MAJORITY Shia country is Yemen. Read one more time carefully! Saudi Arabia doesn’t have a significant Shia population, if any!

Let’s link the statement I addressed with above stated claim “Another point worth noting is that much of “Saudi” oil lies under regions that are majority Shia. IMO the “rulers” there have been stirring up anti-Shia ideas precisely because of this – to justify the theft of resources.”

The only place in Saudi Arabia where there is some resemblance of compact Shia population is near Bahrain, not Kuwait. Roughly 12% population concentrated in one province is not a justification of the above statement. Is 2 million a significant number when foreigners who work in Saudi Arabia number 5.5 million? None of my statements are untrue.

Is 15-30% a majority? How about “large numbers”? Is that a majority? Is Iraq part of the Arabian Peninsula? Read!!!!!!!
Regarding Sufism, in the previous statement I did make a specific point that Sufism was subverted by both Sunni orthodoxy and some became part of Shiism. Sufism was a significant threat to Islamic establishment in the 9th-12th centuries specifically because it rejected dogmas. Even after it was incorporated into the main stream Islam, it was seen as the first of several steps towards becoming an ideal Muslim because it lacked rigidness of Islamic believes. One of the reasons for fearing Sufism was its ability to find a common ground with non-Muslim cultures and societies. Sufis and dervishes were very popular among non-Arabic Muslims because they introduced Islam into their societies without need for establishing Islamic rule. Even Ottomans, who separated Islam from secular governance to some extent, used Sufi orders to introduce religiosity into the Devshirme as the means of maintaining ideological loyalty separate from the ulama.

Yes, there are many different Sufi tariqas with diverse traditions and teachings but that doesn’t mean we cannot be selective in ones we give legitimacy to in the US.

Islam and moslems are two different entity.
The guy who struck in Stockholm was upset about a number of things
Iraq, Palestine, Pakistan, Afghanisatn the states are muslims state and funily its USA who is killing every hour a dozen. Hoaxnews Abc etc do not inform you od the daily crimes committed against innocent civilians, what you hear all the killings USA is doing in these states were insurgent,suspects, terrorist etc
Now all the US killing is not administered to Christianity reason is because muslim respect and believe in Jesus and moses .
read Islam and see if it says kill innocencent also read christianity it doesn’t say kill innocent BUT US soldiers american soldier christians solder are killing kids and defenceless people.
Does US killing got anything to do with religion?
ead other English news from other countries and spot the difference.
Islam is a virus and will take everyone by logic read Harun Yahya and see what Islam is about not moslims
Moslims are fighting for their dignity just like Vietnam phillipine cambodia and other states USA already raped.
IRAQ remember

I´m sick of all this. You do not understand. Its not about this faith………..
I do not want to sound crazy but its about “ethnic groups” and their special traditions and i do not mean the Jews.
Do I have to say it?
The trend is clear: The Caucasian man, who is ruling this world, is dying (relatively to other races who are rising). This is our system. If we die our system will die. What is the Pentagon doing? We are losing at this moment.
Here are a few points that must be done to initiate the victory (I´m sure there´s talk about this behind closed doors but they are scared because you could be called a nationalsocialist – which in reality is the highest form of Homeland Patriotism).

1. Abolish abortion for the Caucasian man.
2. Abolish Feminism and Gays.
3. No immigration of other “races”.

If this is not done we are doomed.Will “the markets” allow it or will they murder the Caucasian man?

Worth reading: The Constitution of Medina — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina — “The Constitution established: the security of the community, religious freedoms, the role of Medina as a haram or sacred place (barring all violence and weapons), the security of women, stable tribal relations within Medina, a tax system for supporting the community in time of conflict, parameters for exogenous political alliances, a system for granting protection of individuals, a judicial system for resolving disputes, and also regulated the paying of Blood money” around 622 C.E.

“However, as long as Americans are true to ideals of the founding fathers and the American constitution, Dar al-Harb will not succeed. Why is that ? Elementary; what Dar al-Islam offers to non-Muslims is not comparable with what the US constitution offers equally to everyone. When this constitutional protection is no longer available Dar al-Islam start to look appealing. Unfortunately for Americans, they have misunderstood the cliché ‘they hate our freedoms’. ”

I don’t think the concern over Sharia is direct. Multicultural ideology’s dominance of the political establishment in Western countries, it is feared, leaves us unable theoretically and unwilling practically to interfere with emigre Muslim communities attempting to enforce Sharia internally and sometimes externally. The implication of this is that these communities are surreptitiously claiming sovereignty in lands which are not their own and in which they are guests.

The political theologies of Christianity and Judaism, to mention the chief counter-examples, underwent an extensive theoretical transformation in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries which allowed for the possibility of modern liberal democracy. Islam has no equivalents to Martin Luther, Benedict Spinoza, or John Milton; indeed, the Christians and Jews of the medieval era would have recognized Sharia as rather close to their own legal and political understanding in comparison to us.

Are Muslims able to remain true to their religion and be good citizens of America’s constitutional order? It’s a legitimate question, and a separate question from whether imperialism is good or bad.

I think another fear, perhaps not easily articulated by Christians here, is that Christian prosyletization of non-Christians will either be outlawed or covertly muscled out of existence as a threat to the multicultural order. I’ve been shocked to see in comments sections on e-zines like Salon.com and the Nation.com which suggest in the sloppiest and ugliest of terms that fundamentalists should have their children forcibly removed for re-education, should not be allowed to hold jobs in academia or government, and should only be allowed to practice their religion as long as they keep it completely to themselves (as it is too hateful and vile to be tolerated by decent and thoughtful folk). Christian resistance to abhorrent or ridiculously adventuristic immoralism, however rooted in ancient doctrines or rational arguments, is accused of being some latent act of treason or attempted tyrannizing. A great example is the recent arrest of the Columbia professor accused of having an affair with his grown daughter. Surely it does not take a particularly fundamentalist or Christian sensibility to judge that screwing family members is, in general, something the law should discourage, but to listen to some people’s reactions you’d think that enforcing incest prohibitions is just a prelude to theocracy in America.

Some of the hay made concerning Muslim “theocracy” is just the Right’s way of illustrating the hypocritical anti-Christian animus of the Left. Muslims possess “ethnic” or multicultural status in the eyes of the Left but Christians do not, an obvious contradiction but one rooted in unfinished business from the Enlightenment (which was never as successful or convincing as its proponents claimed). Not every Christian or Jew went along with modernity and many in the last century have openly called for its repudiation as fundamentally incompatible with divine truth–this is why they are labeled “fundamentalists”. That added to the fact that modern political and technological thought has been unable to live up to its utopian promise to resolve all essential human problems (and, indeed, to cause entire new ones to come into existence) has led to zero-sum warfare between Right and Left. Leftists particularly seem more pessimistic than they have ever been, positing global destruction and crafting dark fantasies about theocratic persecutions that can only be averted if regressivist thinking is cordoned off from public space and discussion.

In some ways Muslims are caught in between: they never had an “Enlightenment” or a counter-Enlightenment but are rather a position like the Japanese a couple of centuries ago, viewing modernity through the lens of foreign colonization. Muslims must acquire the benefits of modernity, particularly technological and economic, without adopting its religious foundation or compromising their own, and it’s not clear there is a way to do this.

The simple fact is that women from Muslim cultures do not have the personal freedom that Western women have. Whether the roots of this are cultural or religious does not interest me. No matter what Sharia says about women, wives are not companions but servants. I have been frequently shocked to ask Muslim men about their wives’ interests only to be greeted by a blank stare and finally an admission of total ignorance. While violence against women occurs in every society, “honor killings” are almost exclusively Muslim and, worse, almost totally unpunished by legal authorities in Muslim countries, even if the dead woman had been a rape victim. Visit an Islamic community cemter in the US and observe that women are not only separate from men but subservient to them. How will life change for American women if Muslims become even ten percent of the population through a combination of immigration, conversion, and high birth rates? Even if laws don’t change, the culture will. Multiculturalism and a demand for sensi

I hardly believe that questioning religious fanaticism makes one to be a bigot…there are those who believe that Creationism is a bad deal for Christians to ignore evolution…and they are not labeled as bigots.

Back in the 50’s, evolution was banned from being studied…apparently in more observant Islamic countries you will be looked down upon similarly. When is it being labeled a bigot prevents you from caring about people who want to impose something upon you is okay?

Am I also being a “bigot” if I questioned how the Khemer Empire used their version of Buddhism to be repressive toward others? Which explains why Pol Pot wanted to continue that example.

How about if I question all the bad behavior done on Christians by other Christians during the Medieval Period? Am I being “bigoted” for questioning that? How are those religions any different from what radical Islam is doing now?